Barriers to Munitions Detection Technology Transfer

Noblis Technical Report

Identification of Barriers to Munitions Detection Technology Transfer

Unexploded Ordnance Discrimination

September 2008

Jon Horin Robert S. Wassmann

Customer: SERDP/ESTCP Contract No.: FA8903-04-D-8715

Noblis Dept. No.: H300 Project No.: Task Order 085

Falls Church, Virginia

Page intentionally left blank.

ii

Table of Contents

List of Acronyms v

1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Report Organization 2

2 Objectives and Approach 2 2.1 Study Objectives 2 2.2 Approach 3

3 UXO Discrimination Technology 3 3.1 Technology Description – Hardware 4 3.2 Technology Description – Processing and Software 4 3.3 Current Use 5

4 Potential Market for UXO Discrimination Technology 6

5 Findings: Barriers to Increased Use of UXO Discrimination Technology 9 5.1 Stakeholder Acceptance 9 5.2 User Acceptance – The Willingness to Try 10 5.3 State of Technology – Level of Maturity/Readiness 10 5.4 Cost versus Benefits 10 5.5 Implementation 11 5.6 Contracting 11

6 Recommendations 12 6.1 Continue to Promote Development and Technology Transition at Real-World

Sites 12 6.2 Elevate Engagement of Regulators and Stakeholders 12 6.3 Update Programmatic Policies and Project Acquisition and Management

Practices to Facilitate the Use of Discrimination Methodologies 12

7 Conclusions 13

Appendix A – DoD Directive from Mr. Alex Beehler 15

Appendix B – UXO Discrimination Briefing to the Steering Committee 17

iii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Applicability of WAA and Discrimination to Remedial Action Phases 1

Figure 2. Distribution of Found Anomaly Types 4

Figure 3. Geophysical Technique by Response Action Phase 5

Figure 4. Potential Market Size by Service 7

Figure 5. Timeframe for Projected RA Schedule 8

Figure 6. Cumulative Distribution of RA Starts 9

List of Tables

Table 1. Recent Examples of UXO Discrimination Use 6

Table 2. Potential Market for UXO Discrimination 6

Table 3. Potential Number of Anomalies and MEC 8

iv

List of Acronyms

DAS Deputy Assistant Secretary

DGM Digital geophysical mapping

DoD U.S. Department of Defense

EE/CA Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis

ESTCP Environmental Security Technology Certification Program

FS Feasibility study

FUDS Formerly Used Defense Sites

GPO Geophysical prove out

ID/IQ Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity ITRC Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council

KBCRS Knowledge-Based Corporate Reporting System

M&D Magnetometer (mag) and dig

MEC Munitions and explosives of concern

MMRP Military Munitions Response Program

MRS Munitions Response Site

NAOC National Association of Ordnance Contractors PBC Performance-Based Contract

PM Program/project manager

QA Quality assurance

QC Quality control

R&D Research and development

RA Remedial action

RI Remedial investigation

SERDP Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program

SI Site investigation

TCRA Time-critical removal actions

UXO Unexploded ordnance

WAA Wide Area Assessment

v

vi


1 Introduction

This report presents the findings and recommendations of the study conducted for the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) to identify potential barriers to the transfer of technologies—from the research and development (R&D) phase to active field use—for munitions detection. To conduct a practical, focused assessment of barriers to technology transfer, the study focused on two specific emerging technologies: Wide Area Assessment (WAA) and unexploded ordnance (UXO) discrimination. This report discusses UXO discrimination; a parallel report on WAA is also available.

1.1 Background The issue of UXO detection and remediation technology transfer barriers has been discussed

for the last decade, perhaps most notably in the Final Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Unexploded Ordnance.1 That report identified two areas where significant cost savings to the DoD are possible: the reduction of the “footprint” of potential Munition Response Sites (MRS) through the use of what is now called WAA and the reduction of the number of holes dug looking for munitions through the use of discrimination technologies. Over the lifecycle of an environmental action starting with site investigation (SI) working through remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) and remedial action (RA) towards site closure, WAA has applicability on the front end and UXO discrimination has applicability during the RA phases (see Figure 1).

WAA Discrimination

SI RI/FS RA

Figure 1. Applicability of WAA and Discrimination to Remedial Action Phases

The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) R&D programs have invested significant resources to improve the methodology for locating munitions via modern digital survey systems, sound geophysical survey procedures, and post-processing of data for enhanced detection and discrimination to reduce cost and improve reliability and efficiency of UXO remediation. The methodology could replace many traditional “magnetometer (mag) and dig” (M&D)-type UXO remediations that typically use analog instruments, particularly where all detected targets (anomalies) must be investigated (i.e., excavated). The benefits of today’s newer methodology include the following: (1) Digital data allow maintenance of a permanent record of the locations of targets and sensor signatures over targets; (2) Digital data typically have higher dynamic range (hence higher signal-to-noise ratios) than the analog data that rely on audio or visual output; (3) Digital data allow and facilitate post-processing to enhance signatures for improved detection and for UXO discrimination and identification; and (4) Digital data acquisition is more likely to be repeatable by surveys at different times and by different operators. This study identified and 1 Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Unexploded Ordnance, December 2003, Office of the

Undersecretary for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, Washington, DC.

1

examined the barriers inhibiting broader use of UXO discrimination detection and identification technologies. Broader use of these methods should yield significant cost savings by increasing detection capabilities while improving discrimination between munitions and explosives of concern (MEC) and clutter.

These new technologies and methods are not being adopted in common practice as might be expected even though the total cost of UXO remediation, and the effectiveness of clearance actions could be improved by their use. To that end, the Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health), Mr. Alex Beehler, directed the ESTCP to conduct a study to identify and examine potential barriers to UXO detection and remediation technology transfer. Mr. Beehler issued a memorandum on 23 December 2005 (the Directive), to the Deputy Assistant Secretary (DAS) of the Army (Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health), the DAS of the Navy (Environment), DAS of the Navy (Safety), DAS of the Air Force (Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health), and the Director, Defense Logistics Agency requesting that they provide the necessary support to ESTCP to conduct this study.

The Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP)/ESTCP initiated this study in June 2006 with issuance of a task order to Noblis to help establish a government steering committee and to provide technical support to the committee throughout its investigations, deliberations, and analysis of potential barriers to UXO technology transfer.

1.2 Report Organization This report is divided into the following sections: • Section 2—Objectives and Approach • Section 3—UXO Discrimination Technology • Section 4—Potential Market for UXO Discrimination Methodologies • Section 5—Findings: Potential Barriers to UXO Discrimination Technology Transfer • Section 6—Recommendations • Section 7—Conclusions

There are also two appendices: • Appendix A— Memorandum from ADUSD(ESOH) Regarding Unexploded Ordnance

(UXO) Technology Transfer Study • Appendix B—UXO Discrimination Briefing to the Steering Committee

2 Objectives and Approach

2.1 Study Objectives The objective of the project was to conduct an independent study to identify and analyze the

barriers to UXO detection and remediation technology transfer and, where possible, make recommendations for addressing such barriers.

Specifically the study was conducted to accomplish the following:

• Identify and examine potential barriers to UXO detection and remediation technology transfer

• Identify potential government actions to overcome the barriers that would encourage and allow for the application of the latest UXO technologies throughout the lifecycle of UXO remediation

2

• Provide data on the technologies being used for current cleanup actions and, if appropriate, examine specific case studies to determine the drivers for technology selection

2.2 Approach To facilitate the study stated in the Directive, a steering committee was convened with

representation from the Services and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—Huntsville Center. This steering committee provided input and guidance during the study and upon completion of the study, provided comments and recommendations.

The approach of the study included the following:

• Conducting interviews • Assessing munitions detection technologies and current use • Analyzing the potential market for munitions response technologies • Reviewing policy, guidance, and requirements documents • Providing recommendations and conclusions

To collect information to perform this study, Noblis performed the following activities:

• Conducted 30+ interviews with Army, Navy, and Air Force managers, technical support personnel, industry contractors, and National Association of Ordnance Contractors (NAOC) representatives

• Attended eight Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP)-related conferences, symposia, and MMRP Work Group meetings to obtain information on status of technology and its use in site munitions response actions

• Conducted analysis of the 2006 Defense Environmental Restoration Program Knowledge-Based Corporate Reporting System (KBCRS) MMRP dataset to assess potential market (site counts, size, characteristics, phase action timeframe, estimated costs)

• Reviewed several programmatic, guidance, and requirements documents to determine if language posed potential barriers to use of innovative technologies in the field

• Conducted case study reviews of selected field implementations • Reviewed statements of work and performance work statements to assess language of

project requirements for contractors and whether they presented potential barriers to usage of innovative technologies in the field

Results from these efforts are discussed in the following sections.

3 UXO Discrimination Technology

UXO discrimination is the ability to distinguish intact munitions (or munitions-like) items from munitions debris, cultural debris, and geology-induced anomalies. The number of false positives (i.e., detection of non-munitions and explosives of concern [MEC] items) far exceed detection of actual MEC (Figure 2). Each false positive must be thoroughly investigated, i.e., involves digging, to determine if it is a UXO item. Discrimination can enable project managers (PMs) to significantly reduce the number of digs needed. The primary benefit of UXO discrimination is cost reduction achieved by a reduction of the number of digs caused by false positives. The overall project cost is lower because the time in the field is reduced. Additional

3

benefits include a reduction in the amount of clutter to be removed and disposed of, and possibly greater confidence in removal during the munitions response due to the increased level of sophistication of the data analysis.

Source: Based on analysis of 19 munitions response action dig results

Figure 2. Distribution of Found Anomaly Types

UXO discrimination is a methodology that involves hardware, data-processing software, survey procedures, and interpretation of output for decision-making. In the case of UXO discrimination, decision-making is a much more important component and requires participation of not just the geophysicist and the project delivery team but also the regulators and the stakeholders.

3.1 Technology Description—Hardware Current field geophysical detection methods involve implicit discrimination—selecting

munitions-like anomalies over background noise or obvious geological elements. For example, with analog magnetometers, discrimination depends on instrument sensitivity settings and human interpretation of the audio output. With digital geophysical systems, selection depends on the anomaly signal and the software derived response compared to the shape and characteristics of anticipated munitions

New methods employ advanced detection and characterization to perform discrimination explicitly. Systems vary and can involve high-resolution signal acquisition, multi-channel signal analysis, and assessment of response characteristics driven by item features such as size, shape, and magnetic polarizability. Advanced signal induction and response detection hardware is also being developed that stimulate and/or detect electromagnetic responses from multiple vector angles creating much richer and distinctive profiles of anomalies. However, given the variability in the range of munition types needed to be detected and the range of site characteristics likely to be encountered, no single approach is apt to be universally applicable.

3.2 Technology Description—Processing and Software The various processing methods include signal time-decay analysis, where the magnitude

and rate of decay of the magnetic fields depend on the electrical properties and geometry of the medium and any subsurface objects; magnetic polarizability, which is determined by the size and shape of the object; Chi2 analysis, where the magnetic soil response is compared to a metallic response; and active learning and analysis, where a database of references is populated and used

4

to enhance decision-making in the process. There are also a variety of software packages that are used to establish the dig list of anomalies.

3.3 Current Use Digital geophysical mapping (DGM) is widely used and accepted as a standard practice for

munitions mapping operations. M&D is still widely used for munitions sweep, anomaly avoidance, range-maintenance operations, and target reacquisition. During munitions mapping operations, M&D is still used when appropriate, such as locations with difficult terrain, excessive vegetation cover, high signal-to-noise ratio, or excessive clutter. Figure 3 shows geophysical technology use by the response-action phase. The Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) phase, which for this study was considered equivalent with the RI/FS and the SI phase, was grouped and clearly dominated by DGM. The time-critical removal actions (TCRAs) phase was dominated by M&D, probably due to the expedience at which that technology can be deployed. A combination of DGM and M&D is normal practice.

6%13%

50% 53%

10%

21%

64%

32%

14%

29%

31%

45%

14%

18%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

EE/CA;RI/FS; SI

RemedialAction

TCRA Sweep;RangeMaintResponse Action Phase

Perc

enta

ge o

f Site

Act

ions

DGM + Mag&DigDGMMag&Dig + DGMMag&Dig

n = 36 n = 31 n = 14 n = 17

Figure 3. Geophysical Technique by Response Action Phase (Based on assessment of 98 Munitions Response Site Actions)

UXO discrimination methodologies have been tested and used in both demonstrations and in limited production mode at several sites over the last few years. Some of the applications involved high risk removal actions such as chemical agent filled items where the costs associated with excavation far exceed the cost of routine MEC excavation. Examples of those experiences are noted in Table 1 to demonstrate the application and results achieved.

5

Table 1. Recent Examples of UXO Discrimination Use Site Timeframe Approach Result

Fort McClellan, Alabama; Eastern Bypass RA ~2002–2003 Multi-criteria target

characterization

25% target reduction; quality control (QC) false negative rate: 0.3%

Lowry Bombing and Gunnery Range, Colorado; Jeep/Demolition Range Chemical Agent Identification Sets Pig RA

2003 Cued interrogation 90% target reduction

Camp Croft, South Carolina; OU 1 Non-TCRA 2005 Multi-criteria target

characterization 69% target reduction

DuPont/Remington Arms Plant RA 2005 to present Cued interrogation

85% target reduction; Estimated cost savings: $1.5M

Spring Valley, Maryland; Geophysical Prove Out (GPO) 2006 UXO-analyze Failed to meet GPO

acceptance criteria

In summary, UXO discrimination is being used in the field to a very limited extent. Approaches include advanced data processing, cued interrogation, Chi2 analysis, and feature extraction. The performance being reported indicates target reductions ranging from 25–90%.

4 Potential Market for UXO Discrimination Technology

The potential market for UXO discrimination was estimated by analyzing data in the KBCRS—a relational database containing detailed information on DoD environmental programs. The potential market was defined as “firing or bombing ranges” that have the remedial action phase or phases programmed for out-year requirements. For this analysis, the “firing and bombing ranges” category grouped several KBCRS range types that were deemed appropriate for UXO discrimination methodologies based on usage patterns, expected ordnance type, and other factors (referred to as “Site Type 1” in this study). For example, firing ranges, multi-use ranges, and air-to-land ranges were included and pistol ranges, disposal pits and dry wells were excluded. Likewise, the “remedial action” category in this study grouped related phases within KBCRS such as “remedial action-operations” and “interim remedial action or removal action.” Table 2 shows the potential magnitude of the market by Service, installation, and number of sites—this includes Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) data, which clearly drives the market in both number of sites and total acreage. Acknowledging that the KBCRS data contains some inaccuracies, the sheer potential market size makes any inaccuracies in the data inconsequential to this analysis.

Table 2. Potential Market for UXO Discrimination

Component Number of Installations Number of Sites Total Acreage FUDS 922 961 15,010,027 Army 107 358 2,608,974 Air Force 45 159 162,618 Navy 43 162 49,117 Total 1,117 1,640 17,830,735 Source: Analysis of 2006 KBCRS MMRP data

Although the exact number of sites with conditions favorable to UXO discrimination

technology is unknown, it is most likely a majority of the total number identified as potential in

6

Table 2. Favorable conditions include terrain and vegetation cover that would allow the use of DGM and sites that have a moderate-to-high signal-to-noise ratio and moderate-to-low clutter issues. To determine the upward bound of the market, it is assumed that all sites identified in Table 2 would be appropriate for discrimination methodologies.

Estimated MMRP response action costs were also obtained to measure the potential market in terms of funding for UXO discrimination technologies. The data was obtained from KBCRS using the same categories to determine the market size in acres; firing and bombing ranges with out-year requirements for remedial/removal actions. Figure 4 shows the costs for the assessments, analysis/investigation, and remedial action phases for firing and bombing ranges. UXO discrimination methodologies could be applicable to each of these phases. The relative costs of the FUDS program and each of the Services’ programs tracks with the number of acres, as expected.

$10,621 M

$2,256 M

$871 M $512 M

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

Estimated C

ost-to-Com

plete ($M)

FUDS ARMY AIR FORCE NAVY

Assessments Analysis/Investigation Remedial Action

es

Source: 2006 KBCRS MM

sult in significant

cost savings when the total number of anomalies is in the hundreds of millions.

Site Type: Firing and Bombing RangRP data

Figure 4. Potential Market Size by Service

Using the total acres derived in Table 2, the potential anomaly and MEC population estimated from empirical data is on the order of hundreds of millions, and millions respectively (see Table 3). Numerous case studies have documented a dig avoidance of 25–90% of all detected anomalies using UXO discrimination technologies. Using a worst-case scenario where each anomaly must beinvestigated, even a target reduction on the low end of the range (25%) would re

7

Table 3. Potential Number of Anomalies and MEC

Total Potential Anomalies • Empirical* anomaly density (anomalies/acre)

(20 DGM sites) − Min–Max Range: 1–250 − Average: 47 (area-weighted); 89 (site

average) − Overall Number: Potentially hundreds of

millions

Total Potential MEC • Empirical* average percentage: ~1–5% (30

DGM and M&D sites) • Empirical MEC density (MEC/acre):

− Min–Max Range: 0–117 − Average: ~2–3/acre − Overall Number: Potentially millions across

all sites

*Based on analysis of data from 30 MMRP site response actions. Years: 1998–2006; Site Acreages: 10–512. Note that these values are based on MEC and anomaly counts found on the overall site. Localized densities, such as for target or open burn/open detonation areas, can be much higher.

The timeframe for the projected RA schedule (2006 Department of Environmental Protection

Acquisition and Restoration Council) is shown in Figures 5 and 6. All Service MMR RAs start before 10% of FUDS RAs begin. The bulk of the Service MMR RAs occur before the year 2025, while the FUDS program ramps up in that timeframe and stays generally steady until ramping down around the year 2070. To put the FUDS program in context with the Services, it comprises approximately 60% of the potential market for UXO discrimination (as defined by RAs) and extends to 2084 under the current funding profile. The long tail of the FUDS program provides for adequate time to improve UXO discrimination methodologies and apply them to the bulk of the potential market. Furthermore, active installations under the control of the Services make ideal locations for further testing and validation of UXO discrimination methodologies.

Site Type: Firing and Bombing Source: 2006 KBCRS MMRP data

Figure 5. Timeframe for Projected RA Schedule

8

Cumulative Distribution of RA Starts by Component (Type 1 Sites)

FUDS800

89

All Services543

ARMYNAVY

AF

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

2055

2060

2065

2070

2075

2080

2085

2090

Phase Action Begin FY

Cum

mul

ativ

e N

umbe

r of P

hase

Act

ions

FUDSAll ServicesARMYNAVYAF

Figure 6. Cumulative Distribution of RA Starts

5 Findings: Barriers to Increased Use of UXO Discrimination Technology

This section of the report presents the main barriers impeding rapid diffusion of UXO discrimination technology. The study focused on barriers to UXO discrimination as a concept or model in general rather than item- or technology-specific approaches, which have different challenges.

The potential barriers fall into five categories: stakeholder acceptance, user acceptance, level of maturity, cost versus benefit, and implementation issues.

5.1 Stakeholder Acceptance Stakeholder acceptance—including regulators, the public, and local government—is still a

significant barrier and boils down to perceived risk. “Perceived risk” is relevant because the actual risk at any site is unknown and will remain unknown. The only way to determine the actual risk at any site would be to excavate an entire site to depth. Taking that factor into consideration, 100% of MEC removal may or may not be attainable, but 100% confidence that all MEC has been removed is not attainable and never has been attainable. The challenge is in educating stakeholders so that they can understand this reality and accept some level of risk, even if very low. Furthermore, UXO discrimination requires the quantification of the probability of detection versus false positives and the confidence levels of MEC removal completeness. These terms and concepts may be unfamiliar to stakeholders, which makes acceptance difficult. Stakeholders often have less knowledge than the user community of emerging technologies, including how the technologies work and the status of their development. There is a need to educate stakeholders in the complex process of discrimination analysis and confidence

9

assessment and to build trust to the point where stakeholders accept leaving anomalies un-dug where there is a high degree of confidence that those anomalies are not MEC.

In December 2000, the Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC) published a case study report: “Breaking Barriers to the Use of Innovative Technologies: State Regulatory Role in the Unexploded Ordnance Detection and Characterization Technology Selection.” The report stated that “DoD project managers will increase the likelihood of regulatory concurrence on key decision points in the cleanup process if they invite early, meaningful participation and involvement in the site characterization and technology selection process by the state regulator and the community end user.” That statement is consistent with the findings in this study.

5.2 User Acceptance—The Willingness to Try User acceptance by the DoD Program Managers (PM) and their contractors is another barrier

to using innovative UXO discrimination technologies. Although some PMs and contractors are innovators, willing to adopt new methods and technologies, the majority of PMs and contractors want a technology to be “tried and true.” Knowledge of UXO discrimination technologies increases acceptance. Willingness to try depends on confidence in performance, level of verification and validation, regulatory acceptance, cost, and extent of real-world use. Users may know that development, testing, and pilot programs are ongoing, but they generally do not know the details of the various approaches, their status, or the results. Government PMs often rely on points-of-knowledge individuals who are trusted and who can inform potential users when needed. This study encountered examples of these points-of-knowledge individuals in all branches of the Services. However, the number of users far exceeds the number of points-of-knowledge individuals and their span of influence, and the user often remains unfamiliar, unsure, or lacking confidence in the newer discrimination methodologies.

5.3 State of Technology—Level of Maturity/Readiness The state of the technology is also a barrier; although there are established UXO

discrimination methodologies—including hardware, data processing software, and survey procedures—and the methodologies continue to evolve. Numerous investigators are working on different approaches; the components are in various stages of development, but most are in the R&D or prototype stage. There are also numerous field tests and demonstrations occurring on an ongoing basis. Users are concerned with factors such as hardware durability and geo-location accuracy, as well as the necessary skill levels to employ the methodology and interpret the results. Traditional M&D operation rely heavily on technicians, whereas discrimination technologies rely more on trained geophysicists to process and interpret the data.

Over time, the technology will become more mature and accepted as its testing and use becomes more widespread.

5.4 Cost versus Benefits In the near term, discrimination methodologies are likely to be somewhat more expensive

than standard DGM (due to hardware, data processing, and interpretation costs), and more time will be required to process the data. In addition to the operational costs, the use of discrimination technologies will often require more interaction (time and effort) with regulators to obtain acceptance and reach agreement on a point of “no further digs.” Despite those considerations, the potential cost savings on removal actions attributed to fewer digs are significant. Although it is estimated that 70–75% of current remediation costs result from digging at locations of false alarms (non-MEC), many program managers express a potential challenge of successfully leaving anomalies in place to the extent that they can achieve cost savings. Ongoing analysis of

10

costs and savings as UXO discrimination methodologies are employed in operational scenarios is needed. Defining the effectiveness (or cost) of an emerging or new technology versus the current technology remains a challenge. Contractors are unwilling to expend corporate dollars to pursue innovative technologies when the return on investment is unclear. This leaves the government as the principal investor in technology development. Normally, the private sector would invest significantly if there was a greater chance to see an innovative technology widely accepted and adopted as the “best available and appropriate technology.”

5.5 Implementation There are implementation barriers encountered during early stages of UXO projects related to

planning and policy. At this time, there is no agreement between the DoD and the Environmental Protection Agency or state regulators pertaining to the use of UXO discrimination methodologies nor is there a DoD policy to promote use of discrimination technologies that could improve detection and discrimination while reducing the cost of field activities.

Some quality assurance (QA) requirements are contrary to discrimination practice in that they stipulate digging metallic objects to a certain depth relative to the type of MEC found at the site. The lack of discrimination-relevant QA/QC requirements makes it ambiguous or difficult as to what is acceptable to leave un-dug.

There are also implementation barriers associated with funding. Although projects using discrimination methodologies may have a greater front-end cost, those costs should be offset by savings achieved by digging fewer anomalies and by spending less time on a site while increasing the number of MEC actually removed. Assuming cost reductions are realized, savings generated by discrimination methodologies could allow funding to become available for other projects. As discrimination methodologies become more accepted, justifying front-end costs should not be an issue.

5.6 Contracting Contractors are typically adverse to project, cost, and schedule risk, which often creates a

barrier to employing new technologies. The UXO industry is very competitive and contractors are apprehensive about compromising their competitive edge or assuming more risk than necessary by trying something new. In addition, the government’s acquisition process in the UXO area tends to favor tried-and-true approaches. Several of the multiple-award UXO contracts currently being used by various DoD components compete task orders on a fixed-price basis. One of the intents of a fixed-price contract is to shift the bulk of the risk to the contractor. Because new technologies by nature are more risky than established technologies, most contractors are not willing to assume that risk in a fixed-price environment.

The use of Performance-Based Contracts (PBCs) is also common in the UXO market. PBCs define performance objectives and metrics and allow the offerors to propose the approach or methodology. Without objectives or metrics that favor discrimination, contractors will almost always propose a proven methodology that keeps their risk to a minimum rather than propose something new. Most PBCs are fixed-price, which creates the situation where a contractor will only propose a solution that is proven to satisfy the requirements in the contact at a known cost.

The average size of UXO task orders is under $0.5M, and more than 75% of awards are competed between the winners of larger indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (ID/IQ) task order multiple award contracts. Because of the cost-competitive nature of the market, it is not likely that technology investments can be recovered on a single project. In theory, PBC is designed to spawn innovation, but it appears to be having the opposite effect when applied to the UXO area.

11

6 Recommendations

This report provides the following recommendations regarding potential barriers to the transfer of technologies for munitions detection from the R&D phase to active field use:

• Continue to promote development and technology transition at real-world sites • Elevate DoD’s engagement of regulators and stakeholders to improve acceptance • Develop programmatic policies and project acquisition and management practices to

facilitate use of discrimination methodologies

6.1 Continue to Promote Development and Technology Transition at Real-World Sites

• Continue to promote (fund or supplement) in-field/real-world testing and production use of discrimination technologies. Developers should be required to publish detailed performance, cost, and anomaly dig results from these efforts to get the information into the public domain.

• There is no central clearinghouse for information on UXO technology. The DoD should develop a central knowledgebase accessible to PMs, contractors, and regulators and take advantage of current active installation response actions to develop, improve, and validate discrimination technologies.

Sites on active installations are ideal because the government controls access, which means that regulatory flexibility is likely to be greater on DoD-retained properties. The Services have a near-term opportunity at active installations to advance UXO discrimination technology development and acceptance to support a potential cost avoidance of billions of dollars in the decades-long FUDS program.

6.2 Elevate Engagement of Regulators and Stakeholders • Establish a clear and accepted definition of discrimination and continue to engage the

ITRC and regulators to develop an approach for implementation and regulator acceptance.

• Consider adopting a Triad-like approach where active, iterative participation of project teams and stakeholders as the field teams dig based on a prioritized list to obtain mutual agreement on a stopping point.

• Promote onsite testing/validation of DGM and discrimination methodologies during the RI phase to achieve early involvement and create an opportunity to demonstrate to the regulators and other stakeholders performance and usability in a site-specific context.

6.3 Update Programmatic Policies and Project Acquisition and Management Practices to Facilitate the Use of Discrimination Methodologies

• Establish a working group that cross-cuts acquisition, technology, and project management areas. Individuals working in these areas tend to work separately until, for example, a specific project and acquisition brings them together. The establishment of a working group would advance planning and strategy development in an environment unencumbered by the usual schedule-driven projects that bring the communities together.

• As the UXO discrimination methodologies mature, develop a Technical Guidance Manual describing the various approaches available and defining best practices depending on site conditions and project objectives.

12

• Develop a DoD policy that requires the Components to promote and incorporate better discrimination approaches as they evolve.

• Add a discrimination methodology implementation target to the DoD Environmental Strategic Plan (to be updated in 2009): “Support the development and use of cost-effective cleanup approaches and technologies to improve program efficiency.”

• Direct those agencies issuing UXO contracts to use contract types that provide incentives for cost savings achieved through the use of discrimination while achieving measured performance goals (better and cheaper). Although PBCs can save costs to the government, they may be counterproductive to the use of innovative technology. Only by increased potential profit margins or by shifting some risk back to the government will industry be willing to try new technologies.

• Develop discrimination-related performance objectives and metrics that can be adopted and implemented in contracts and guidance documents. This should include quality metrics associated with leaving some anomalies un-dug as opposed to a requirement to dig up all anomalies.

7 Conclusions

This study confirmed that UXO discrimination methodologies can result in digging fewer anomalies and spending less time on site while increasing the number of MEC actually removed. There are current examples where UXO discrimination has been used cost effectively under certain scenarios where the cost of excavation exceeded the averages cost of routine MEC removal. The potential market for UXO discrimination technologies is substantial in terms of acres, sites, and funding. The FUDS program is the driver, owning the requirements for approximately 60% of the RAs followed by the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy. The Services MMR RAs will be completed before 10% of the FUDS RAs begin, approximately in the year 2025. Thus, there is sufficient time to continue to evolve UXO discrimination methodologies on active installations in a production environment. It is recommended that the DoD continue to promote development and technology transition at real-world sites, elevate the engagement of regulators and stakeholders to gain acceptance, and develop programmatic policies and project acquisition and management practices to facilitate use of discrimination methodologies.

13


14

Appendix A – DoD Directive from Mr. Alex Beehler

15

16


Appendix B – UXO Discrimination Briefing to the Steering Committee

17

18 18

19 19

20 20

21 21

22 22

23 23

24 24

25 25

26 26

27 27

28 28

29 29

30 30

31 31

32 32

33 33

34 34

35 35

36 36

37 37

38


Documents

Barriers to Munitions Detection Technology Transfer